Studying the Bible​in Postmodern Times

The Bible is the story of the self-revelation of God through a chosen people. As such, it can be read in two major ways. First, it can be studied subjectively to encounter the Voice of God in the text.

Secondly, it can be studied objectively, to analyze the text.

The postmodern era poses special challenges to these two traditional approaches to studying the Bible. To understand these challenges, and a response to them, we must first trace the two approaches through history.

The Origin of the Subjective ApproachIn the beginning, language was always experienced subjectively. Words were spoken up close and personal between people. A conversation was always an encounter in which two people interacted and told each other what they were thinking and wanted to do. To hear a spoken word was to experience an event.

The Hebrews recognized this. In Hebrew, the word for ‘word’ is dabar. Itrepresents far more than something said. A dabar conveys the idea of a power released through spoken words. So, when God speaks a dabar, it accomplishes something: "My word (dabar) ... shall not return to me empty," said the Lord (Isaiah 55:11).

The Origin of the Analytical ApproachThe invention of writing altered how people experienced words.

Writing enabled words to be seen. The first written words were given the shape of simple pictographs. Afterwards, cuneiform writing — written in wedges on clay — arose. Then, around 1500 B.C., an obscure Canaanite invented the alphabet, an event that made the writing of words compact and efficient and easily transferable.

Written words lost their sense of a personal, present encounter. Now, words could speak from the past, even many years after they were written. Noble thoughts that caused nations to suffer, words about terrible wars and destroyed cities, could be squeezed into wedge-shaped marks on a clay tablet or strokes on a papyrus or chips on a stone monument.

Before, listeners could only hear words with their ears. Now, they could see them. Before, words would come to them from any direction, all directions, all at the same time. There was no escaping a spoken word. A shouted word could pierce through your door and find you in your bed.

Now, written words could be stopped just by averting your eyes. Before, you felt subject to words. Now, words became subject to you.

Before, the spoken word always had been closely associated with people and the present reality. Now, words began to turn abstract. It was the invention of writing that directly led to the development of theory and logic and analysis .

The Greek "Seeing Culture"The Greek philosophers were among the first to understand the new power of the written word. Plato did not just hear words; he saw them. He knew words as ideas, detached from life and taking on a life of their own. Our word idea comes ultimately from the Greek word “to see.” Our word theory comes from the Greek word theoria, meaning ‘a sight’ (of something seen). An idea is a concept you can see in your mind. A theory is envisioned words. Because the Greeks were able to see words, not just hear them, they were among the first of the early peoples to create an analytical culture.

So enamored were the Greek philosophers about theoria that certain Greek researchers did not even bother with the dirty methods of trial and error in their research. They just relied upon pure reason to bring them to the truth. Reason appeared god-like to them — a realm of perfection where ideas exist and where new ideas can be discovered. (The next time that reason would appear god-like would be during the Enlightenment.)

Aiding the Greek intelligentsia in the development of their analytical culture was the structure of the Greek language itself. Greek is an Indo-European language, based on the idea of substantives and verbs, actors and actions. This rhythm of subject and object, cause and effect, found in Indo-European grammar gives those languages their basic sense of logic. Other languages can and do have a different grammar and a different sense of logic. But with the Greeks, the written word and Indo-European logic combined to spark the early development of their analytical thinking. (See Benjamin Lee Whorf, Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Bejamin Lee Whorf, 1956, pp. 241-244).

The Hebrew "Hearing Culture"On an opposite shore of the Mediterranean another venerable civilization also used writing — the Hebrews. Unlike the Greeks, however, the Hebrews did not develop analytical thinking. Israel was a nation of prophets, not philosophers. Prophets listen to God. Philosophers envision. For the Greek philosopher, intellectual understanding came through the eye. For the Hebrew prophet, it came through the ear. The eye sees and dissects. The ear, on the other hand, hears and obeys.

The difference has proven to be fundamental in the history of the Western world.

The Hebrews began their scriptures by saying that God spoke and all came into existence. In this we recognize a logic different from the logic of Indo-European grammar, with its subjects and objects, causes and effects, if's and then's. In the Hebrew faith, God is the subject and we are the object.

The logic of the Hebrew scriptures is the logic of revelation. God is the cause; we are the result. The Lord speaks and his word has effect on us. In the Indo-European logic of grammar, the most illogical thing is to conclude that something is unrelated to an action. In the logic of revelation, the most illogical thing is to refuse to listen to the Voice of God. To refuse to listen is to refuse to participate in what God is doing. The prophets called it rebellion. We even sometimes call evil irrational.

The Hebrews wrote down what the Voice of God had been telling them, but they never felt they had succeeded in trapping the Word of God onto paper. They confessed the sacred texts to be God-breathed. By this they acknowledged that the Voice of God was not their prisoner. It was not ultimately subject to them; they were still subject to it.

For many centuries the Hebrews strained to listen to the Word of God through their prophets, but then the Word came even closer to them. The Word became flesh. "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2a, NIV). Humanity was allowed to see the Word, not as a written word, but a living Word. “What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life — this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it” (1 John 1:1-2, NIV).

The Seeing and Hearing Cultures IntersectFor centuries the Greek "seeing" culture and the Hebrew "hearing" culture, with their different ways of understanding reality, existed side by side in the eastern Mediterranean. One was a nation of philosophers; the other was a nation of prophets. One had developed a culture of analysis; the other lived under the belief that God was telling them a Story.

Eventually these two great cultures met each other. They did so as their businessmen and traders and ordinary citizens intermingled with one another in cosmopolitan cities.

One such city was Alexandria. Named after the great Greek conqueror, it was also a home to more Jews than lived in Jerusalem. Philo was one Jew who lived there — a Hellenistic, intellectual Jew he was. Walking around Alexandria he spied Greek and Jew sharing marketplace and street. He conceived a great plan to unite the two majestic cultures together, a plan that would make the philosopher respect the prophet and the prophet understand the philosopher. It would be a grand philosophy of his own making with bridges linking Hebrew and Greek thinking together. He would use allegory as one such bridge. Allegory was a way of understanding Scripture that sought deeper meanings behind literal texts. Philo felt that allegory was the way that the Greek mind, with its thoughts about an ideal realm of reason and logic, and the Hebrew mind, with its thoughts of heaven, could connect.

The thoughts of Philo were noble, and his intentions were good, but he failed to understand that the Greek philosopher was not the Hebrew prophet. The Apostle Paul purposely chose a harsher, more combative stance against Greek philosophy (cf. 1 Corinthians 1-2, Colossians 2:8).

Plato, for instance, reasoned that all people possess a divine principle which can be developed through asceticism and the pursuit of the Good and the Beautiful. But Paul recognized such an idea as hostile to all that the Storyteller had been saying to Israel for centuries. Salvation is by God's mercy.

Yet, despite this antipathy between the Greek "seeing" and the Hebrew "hearing" cultures, both made their mark on each other. As the Gospel spread, the Greek world experienced the logic of revelation. The seeds planted by Paul and others proved to be the vanguard of a new society, a Christian realm that would eventually replace the old classical world.

In turn, the Greek "seeing" culture" injected into the church a cadre of people who thought with the logic of Indo-European grammar and began to analyze Scripture as an object of study. Their analytical approach to Scripture remained present but dormant within the church until the Enlightenment. Then, it fully developed and became dominant, leading to the birth of biblical criticism.

Biblical criticism would be useful whenever it helped the church to understand the literal meaning of a text. However, when it dissected a text until there was nothing left, it would prove to rob the church of the Voice of God.

The Patristic EraFrom 100- 400 A.D., the heart of the patristic era, the seeing and hearing cultures both existed within the church. Those who thought with the logic of revelation sought to hear God's Voice in the text, but those who thought with the logic of Indo-European grammar tried to analyze the text as well. The "hearing" culture predominated over the "seeing" culture.

The people of the time were still shaped by the older, oral culture that still considered a word to be an encounter. When the people read the Bible, they sensed there had to be something more than just words on paper. They expected to experience the Living God in the text.

A difference began to arise in their minds between a “spiritual” and a “literal” reading of a text. Today, we use the word literal to refer to the original historical and linguistic meaning. In the patristic era, however, the word literal meant the “dead-letter” of the text. It referred to reading of the written words without having an experience of the Person of God. The general feeling was that the spiritual reading of the Bible — i.e., reading the Bible in such a way as to listen to and experience the Voice of God — was superior to a lifeless, literal reading.

The spiritual reading of the Bible, which could also be called “spiritual hermeneutics,” was widespread in the patristic era, but it was not always balanced. In Alexandria, Origen and his followers played freely with allegory, following Philo’s example. Allegorical excesses came to plague biblical studies for centuries. Fanciful equivalents were made that amuse biblical scholars today. Still, we should recognize that allegory was only an attempt, albeit crude, to hear God’s Voice in the text. Critical scholarship can easily dismiss allegory, but it should not so easily dismiss the intent of allegory.

Attempts were made at historical criticism during the patristic era but, even then, the spiritual power of the written Word was generally respected. The exegetes of ancient Antioch, long considered the champions of a historical-grammatical approach in the ancient world, now are known to have been very interested in the spiritual reading of the text as well. (See Bradley Nassif, "The 'Spiritual Exegesis' of Scripture: The School of Antioch Revisited," Anglican Theological Review 75, pp. 437-470).

Notable exegetes of the time included Origen of Alexandria, the great allegorist (c. 185-254). In the eastern Mediterranean there was Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) and John Chrysostom (c. 345-407). In the West: Ambrose (c. 340-397), Jerome (c. 340-420), Augustine (354-430) and Gregory the Great (c. 540-604). Their writings display a frequent concern for spiritual reading and, outside of Alexandria, often a real concern for the historical meaning of the text as well.

So, although the patristic church began to open itself to analytical thinking and the critical study of the scriptures, it can be said that it soundly resisted the emerging analytical culture in its midst. All during the patristic era the church maintained its suspicion of Greek metaphysical philosophy, which separated reason from reality. It remembered Paul's warning about "philosophy" and it also recalled how Gnosticism had been a major threat to the survival of the church in the second century. Tertullian's suspicion, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”, summed up the feeling of many.

As result of this continuing caution, biblical criticism never developed much as a scientific field of study in the patristic era. This would not happen until the church became more open to the possibilities of philosophy, after the beginning of the Enlightenment.

Of course, it should be said that although the church remained suspicious of philosophy, this is not to suggest that it lacked great minds — individuals like Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome were all great intellectual leaders. Even Tertullian was neither ignorant, nor did he argue for ignorance. Brilliant and educated himself, he was just ruthlessly opposed to Greek metaphysics.

These leaders all shared the belief that the logic of grammar is not the same as the logic of revelation. Their attitude toward reason, therefore, was one of faith seeking understanding. One could not understand the logic of revelation short of leaping into it. This perspective meant that although the patristic leaders participated in a "seeing" culture, they still remained cautiously and firmly rooted in a "hearing" culture.

The Medieval PeriodThe patristic era was a time of scholarship and scholars, but all this came to an abrupt end with the fall of Rome in 410 A.D. Western civilization almost totally disintegrated under waves of invaders that relentlessly assaulted western Europe. The church entered into a long, lackluster era of intellectual demise. It seemed that everything good was lost: scholarship, Bible reading, informed spirituality and civilization itself.

The collapse of Rome and the ensuing chaos created a widespread ignorance of the Bible in the West. This dire situation would last until the 11th century, when greater stability began to take root in western Europe. Only then did wealth, learning and the availability of Bibles gradually begin to increase. (In the East, meanwhile, the development of the creeds and the liturgy, as well as the poor quality of the preaching, relegated the Bible to a secondary status that lasted for the whole medieval period).

In the late medieval period, the greater availability of the Bible in the West birthed a series of spiritual reform movements. God again spoke from the Bible and people again responded. Spiritual reformers such as the Waldensians arose in the 12th century A.D.; Saint Francis in the 13th; Johannes Eckhart, Johannes Tauler and Heinrich Suso in the 14th, and John Wycliffe and John Huss in the 14th-15th centuries.

The analytical culture within western Europe also strengthened in the late medieval period. The increase of wealth and stability in the eleventh century caused the rebirth of the study of philosophy. At first philosophy was merely the tool of theology. But by the thirteenth century philosophy became the rival of faith, not just its slave. Aristotle’s works had just been translated from the Latin and were now widely available. People swiftly recognized in Aristotle’s writing a competing worldview to Christianity. The ancient conflict between faith and philosophy — the hearing culture and the seeing culture — erupted anew in earnest.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) attempted to harmonize the two worldviews. He developed a Christian theology based on the philosophy of Aristotle. After Aquinas, however, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries saw an increasing skepticism about the possibility of harmonizing theology and philosophy. Thus, by the end of the medieval period the "seeing" culture and the "hearing" culture both had become stronger and began to form themselves into competing worldviews. Faith increasingly began to rely on revelation to justify itself while the philosophers claimed the empirical world for themselves.

The ReformationWhen the Reformation arose in 1520, the Reformers firmly rejected Aquinas' mingling of faith and philosophy. Instead, the Reformers based their theology solely on the biblical revelation. In this way the Reformation represents a triumph of the church's "hearing" culture over it's "seeing" culture.

The Reformation, however, was a complex movement. The ever-strengthening analytical culture contributed to the eruption of the Reformation just as much as the "hearing" culture did.

We see this contribution of the analytical culture in two notable events: the development of the movable printing press around 1450 A.D., and the rise of humanism in the late 15th century.

First, the invention of the movable printing press caused the power of the written word to be experienced by more people than ever before. The printing press had an enormous effect in weakening Europe's oral culture and in strengthening the emerging literate culture. As this new literate culture grew, so did the power of analysis in Western thinking. It can be argued that the printing press contributed to the Reformation not only by causing the dissemination of literature but also by changing the way people thought — making them more analytical, and therefore more willing to rethink tradition.

Secondly, humanism began in the late 15th century when scholars fled from Greece to Italy ahead of invading Turks. The arrival of these scholars in Italy caused a fresh breath of critical and curious thinking to sweep through Europe. The humanists were interested in the literal, historical dimensions of the biblical text. Their presence in western Europe caused the birth of modern-era Greek and Hebrew biblical scholarship, especially with the printing of the Hebrew Bible in 1480 and Erasmus' Greek New Testament in 1516. Also, for the first time in the western universities, biblical exegetical lectures replaced allegorical lectures.

The new humanist study of the historical and linguistic meaning of the literal text fueled the Reformation fires. The Reformers felt that the medieval church had strayed far from the original faith. They were certain that a close study of the literal meaning of the text would bring the church back to the original, simple faith of the Gospel.

Yet, although the Reformers followed the historical methods of the humanists, they also preserved the belief that the Voice of God was speaking to them through the text. Reformation hermeneutics emphasized both historical criticism and the Voice of God in a fairly balanced way. This is why Luther exegeted the scriptures in a humanist way, yet he also called the written Word of God, “the vehicle of the Holy Spirit." (See his exposition on 1 John 5:13, given on 6 November 1527).John Calvin, who probed the historical background to the text, also openly asked for divine illumination when he preaching, using such words as: “O Lord, heavenly Father, in whom is the fullness of light and wisdom, enlighten our minds by your Holy Spirit, and give us grace to receive your Word with reverence and humility, without which no one can understand your truth.”

Such thinking represents a balance between the hearing and seeing cultures. The Bible was listened to as a subject, yet also studied as an object. This balance can be seen in the following distillation of Reformation principles about the Bible. In general, the Reformers believed that ...

The Bible is a means of grace through which God can speak.

The Holy Spirit illumines the text for all Christians, not just for church officials.

All Christians should read the Bible to hear God's Voice for their lives.

Interpretations should be tested in the church community to guard against subjectivism.

The literal meaning of the text should be studied to protect against subjectivism.

This, the Reformation theology of spiritual hermeneutics, reached its height of development under the Puritans, whose sermons became known for their spiritual impact. John Owen, the Puritan theologian, wrote a comprehensive treatise on the subject of spiritual hermeneutics in 1678 that is without parallel, either before or since: John Owen's "Synesis Pneumatike, or, The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God as Revealed in His Word, with Assurance Therein."

Besides the Puritans, the Pietists also were concerned for spiritual hermeneutics, as we see in the writings of Philipp Spener (1635-1705) and August Francke (1663-1727). In 1693 Francke wrote A Guide to the Reading and Study of the Holy Scripture. It is divided into two parts. The first stresses the literal and historical meaning of the text. The second consists of methods for detecting the deeper meaning.

In summary, the Reformers achieved a balance between listening to God’s Voice in the text (illumination), and an objective study of the literal meaning of the text (critical scholarship). Their sensitivity to the Voice of God influenced Puritanism and Pietism.

From the Enlightenment to the Modern EraAlthough a balance between the literal and spiritual readings of the biblical text was maintained for a time among the Reformed churches, this balance was quickly lost in many circles. On the Continent, Lutheran scholarship degenerated into a dull Protestant scholasticism that was preoccupied with attacking Catholics. Church dogma controlled biblical exegesis. Meanwhile the horrific Thirty Year's War (1618-1648) between Catholic and Protestant armies, succeeded in scarring European lands and minds. The English Civil War, fanned into flames by religious zealots, also had its effect upon people. By the end of the Reformation century, a time filled with warfare over dogma, people craved a gentler, more reasonable faith.

The mood of Europe turned toward rationalism. The Enlightenment began. Rationalists such as Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) and John Locke (1632-1704) argued for a moral and rational religion. In the mood of the time it was easy for the Deists to conclude that supernaturalism was not rational at all. They rejected the Reformers and, in turn, erected a rival religion based entirely on natural reason alone. And so, a Deist like Anthony Collins (1676-1729) taught that the prophecies could not possibly be literal prophecies, and that miracles were absurd.

It is interesting to note that Deism existed at the same time as Pietism in Europe, illustrating how the old "seeing" and "hearing" cultures continued side by side. William Baird writes: "Viewed side by side, the Deists and the Pietists represent two ways of interpreting the Bible which have influenced New Testament criticism ever since: an objective, rational reading; and a subjective, experiential reading."

Yet, the "seeing" culture was now stronger than the "hearing" culture. The Enlightenment represents the triumph of the analytical culture over the oral culture. Scholars now began to analyze and critique the words of the Bible rather than to listen for God through them. The scientific method was applied to the study of the Bible and modern biblical criticism developed.

The phrase "biblical criticism" often sounds negative to many people. Properly speaking, biblical criticism is the application of the disciplines of philosophy, literature, history and science to the critical study of the Bible. Some of these critical approaches have proven to be extremely helpful in understanding the literal meaning of the text. Text criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and genre criticism are examples of several types of biblical criticism that have made important contributions in our biblical scholarship.

Whenever we ask questions about the writing, transmission, background or literary nature of a text, we are asking critical questions. F. F. Bruce wrote in the 1970's, "The value of these critical methods of Bible study lies in their enabling the reader to interpret the writings as accurately as possible." (F.F. Bruce, "Exegesis and Hermeneutics, Biblical," The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1977, 7:63).

All scholars today use the critical method. They differ, however, to the degree they allow the critical method to affect the religious authority of the text. The distinction between conservative, liberal and radical scholars, as Otto Piper once said, has "nothing to do with scholarship or attainments ... but rather indicates the degree to which the results of scholarship are held to have a bearing upon the religious authority of the Bible." (Otto A. Piper, "Bible," Collier's Encyclopedia, 1956, 3:403).

When scholars adopt historical presuppositions that deny the possibility of revelation, their conclusions will weaken biblical authority. This is exactly what happened among radical biblical critics after the 18th century. They treated the Bible as an object for study without regard for the authority of the text.

When this radical biblical criticism first developed, there were a number of reactions to it. Many individuals simply ignored it. Certainly in the United States radical biblical criticism did not enter into the seminaries to any major degree until after the heresy trial of Charles Briggs in 1892. In the 19th century, many scholars decided to adopt a more moderate approach — people such as Ellicott, Alford, Westcott, Plummer, Swete and Rawlinson. They used biblical criticism while still seeking to be sensitive to biblical authority.

None of these individuals, however, talked much about spiritual hermeneutics. After the Enlightenment, this was largely forgotten by scholars who were focused on reconstructing the literal, historical meaning.

On the Continent, the first real shift back to hearing the Bible, not just analyzing it, came in the person of Karl Barth (1886-1968). He affirmed that the Living Word of God is able to speak through the text even if the written word was found to be flawed with human weakness. Barth's position, known as neo-Orthodoxy, followed on the heels of more than a century of arid, radical biblical criticism. It allowed the Bible to be a means of grace once again. The neo-orthodox theologians felt they had returned to the Reformation.

But there were weaknesses to neo-Orthodoxy. Although the neo-Orthodox movement succeeded in helping mainstream Protestants to listen to the text more, it failed to provide an adequate answer to the problems raised by radical historical criticism. Because of this weakness, it can be argued that Barth failed to fully return the church to the Reformation.

The Reformers, Luther and Calvin, both believed that a historical study of the text helps the reader to avoid subjectivism. Barth, on the other hand, downplayed the historical reading of the text. He said that the Bible was not the Word of God; it merely contained the Word of God.

It was inevitable that some would go one step further after Barth and conclude that a historical faith was not needed at all. This is precisely what the existentialist, Rudolph Bultmann, did by teaching that our existential experience of the text is our "faith."

Late Modern to PostmodernToday, many who are influenced by Bultmann will say that they interpret the Bible metaphorically. "We take the Bible seriously but not literally," is a phrase often heard. The problem with this approach is that the reader defines the metaphor, thereby causing them to read their own meaning into the text. This is nothing more than a subjective existentialism, which is not the biblical doctrine of illumination, or hearing the Voice of God in Scripture.

In recent decades, a great deal of scholarly attention has been given to the reader’s literary, subjective experience of the text. New literary criticism ponders the "world of the text." It derives meaning solely from the literary impressions given by the text itself, devoid of any historical background. Reader response criticism is similar to narrative criticism but enters into the world of the reader as listener to the story of the text.

Summary: Where Are We?In postmodern times, then, two things must happen for us to restore a balanced study of the Bible which includes both subjective and analytical approaches.​

First, we must find a way to subjectively experience the Voice of God in the Bible without falling into an existential subjectivism. We briefly outline how a preacher might do this in the article on this website titled, “Preaching and the Voice of God."

Secondly, we must find a way to analytically study the Bible without resorting to the radical historical criticism of the past. This approach would respect the historical basis of the faith without making biblical authority dependent upon historical criticism. This is what we outline below.

The Analytical Study of the Bible in Postmodern TimesN. T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar who encourages the analytical study of Scripture without resorting to the radical historical criticism of the past. His approach is based on critical realism.

Critical realism is a theory of knowledge which seeks to take the best from modernism while avoiding the excesses of postmodernism. Critical realism believes there is an objective reality, even while it acknowledges the limits of our ability to understand that reality. When we apply this approach to the study of a biblical text, critical realism allows us to study the text analytically, but it also reminds us that we will never be able to completely understand the original meaning.

If we admit that we cannot completely know the original meaning of a text — only an approximate meaning — does this undermine the authority of the Bible? Wright says, "no." The authority of the Bible is not dependent on the caprice of historical criticism. Rather, the sense of authority arises from the Story of God's self-revelation told in Scripture — in other words, from the biblical metanarrative.

Wright is not calling us to return to a pre-critical, pre-modernism in which the Bible is used as a holy source of proof texts. Neither does he make the authority of the Bible dependent on the caprice of historical criticism. Rather, he is directing us to base the authority of Scripture on the total Story of God being told by the Bible.

As Wright puts it: the Story is God's "story with the world, seen as focused on the story of Israel and thence on the story of Jesus, as told and retold in the Old and New Testaments, and as still requiring completion." In other words, biblical authority ultimately rests on the person-hood of God.

Does a Story really exist? Yes, if we believe in the self-revelation of God to the world. But we should recognize that the Story comes to us as individuals stories about people. Through the Exodus deliverance, the Israelites learned that God is a merciful redeemer. Through the Exile, they learned that God is also holy. Through the Return from Exile, they learned that God is the God of hope. In Christ, the promised Messiah, they saw fulfillment of this hope.

All these stories must be allowed to speak on their own, as they should, but they should not be allowed to speak alone. They are meant to be understood together.

Thus, it seems that an alternative to the radical historical criticism of the past may be possible. The new historical method will read each text in terms of the whole of Scripture. The Story emerges from the stories as we understand them to a reasonable degree of historical probability. If we believe that God has been making a self-revelation to the world through a chosen people, then this yields a Story — a metanarrative. The metanarrative reminds us of the person of God working in history, the ultimate basis of biblical authority in the postmodern era.

A critical realism approach to studying the Bible, along with a proper understanding of the biblical doctrine of illumination, provide us with a good step toward returning to a healthy balance of studying the Bible analytically and also hearing the Voice of God in the text.